Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired UK)   In other news, TechnoViking doesn't get how the internet works   (wired.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Asinine, Matthias Fritsch, personality rights  
•       •       •

12091 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Oct 2013 at 12:59 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



66 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-10-15 03:52:54 PM  

JuggleGeek: Squigley: YoOjo: Hitler was an Australian, not a German.

Really mate? I thought he was Austrian.

I remember when the Australians bombed Pearl Harbor.


Led by their fanatical leader Paul Hogan and his wife Kylie Minogue.
 
2013-10-15 03:58:42 PM  
deforge
recording in public is perfectly allowed.


But under German law, publication/distribution of that recording isn't allowed if it's a recording of someone else and the depicted person objects to the usage of their likeness.

Maul555
This still does not explain how paparazzi and tabloids exist.


Different countries, different laws.
Germany allows publishing pictures of "persons of public interest", i.e. celebrities.
And as someone mentioned, technoviking was unknown before the video went viral.
 
2013-10-15 04:02:01 PM  

Nacc: YoOjo: comhcinc:

You know what other German like bullying people around him?

Hitler was an Australian, not a German.
As for Che Guevara, he posed for the photo that's on all the Che shirts in Target. He had a small t.shirt company in Miami back in the 80s and totally sold himself out for a few bucks. All the modern versions are just 'fair use', same as if I put a Ferrari badge on a Neon so as to sell the Neon for $20 more, it's a free planet, laws are just suggestions.

"Did you mean, Austrian, as Australia is an entirely separate country, not even connected to europe?"


That's already been covered.
It's a thing.
But I do appreciate the geography lesson, honestly, thank you. I now know that Australia is a country not connected to Europe.
And that you believe Hitler did not originate there.

img18.imageshack.us
 
2013-10-15 04:21:23 PM  

Maul555: ykarie: DoomPaul: I generally agree. If I'm a photographer and take a picture of someone in public, I should be allowed to sell that picture. Like that famous picture of the Afghan girl in National Geographic. But making additional products on someone's likeness beyond the picture is going too far.

I generally try not to offer legal advice over the internet, but this is just plain wrong in some areas of the world. "Right of publicity" is the usual term in parts of the USA where it's put into law; it goes by other names in other countries. Basically, those laws say that "Even if you are in public with no expectation of privacy, your image can not be used commercially without a license." in some variation.

So the film guy claims he might not have even made the video that he posted to his website, doesn't matter. That would be copyright infringement. And if he had even a little bit of that blog or site directing commercial traffic to him, or any ads, it would violate the "right of publicity" laws of most places.

Now, if the film guy was smart, he'd offer to pull the video from everyplace he actually put it up, and then offer to give Mr. Viking the copyright. Let Mr. Viking send out the DMCA notices and see how warped the internet is. But doing so would have gotten him out of most of the trouble he was in. And if he didn't film the original video, then just admit to copyright infringement and offer to pay a reasonable fine to the original videographer if they will step forward. Chances are, they wouldn't.

This still does not explain how paparazzi and tabloids exist.  They take pictures of famous people, and sell them to seedy magazines, who pack them into bad articles, dispersed with advertising, and then sell the whole thing for a profit while luring customers in with promises of the pictures taken by the paparazzi...


As much as I agree with you, I think there are a few underlying things that protect the magazine.  Like, for instance, the paparazzi are independant contractors.  They don't work for the magazine.  The magazine prints the photos, yes.  But they don't endorse a specific product while doing it.
Paparazzi and magazines alike have been sued and lost MANY times.  Sometimes over copyright-ish issues.  Sometimes over invasion of privacy.  Unfortanately, expectation of privacy doesn't seem to apply in most cases when you're a celebrity.

Unfortunate as it may be, being a celebrity means that you cannot simply go out in public like any normal person.
 
2013-10-15 05:22:05 PM  

OnlyM3: Oh look socialists trying to crush free speech.

How 1940's germany
... or 2000's USA.


Define "socialist" in your own words. Difficulty: demonstrate an actual working knowledge of what the word means.
 
2013-10-15 06:37:30 PM  

t3knomanser: the_sidewinder: Streisand effect

Not completely applicable. The defendant was making a fair bit of money off of Technoviking. While some of the demands are obviously ignorant (it's on the Internet, it ain't getting unpublished), it's not absurd that Technoviking should have some control of the use of his likeness. T-shirts, etc. are completely out of bounds and the defendant should have known better. The "well, this is just meme culture" isn't an excuse.


Kahabut: Did someone screw with fark or is every person commenting in this thread illiterate?

Missing words, missing letters, terrible composition... seriously guys, it's like trying to read 4th grade homework.  This is above and beyond the typical "I don't care" typing we get here most often, this is an outright assault on grammar.


Maybe the "personal derpfilter" the FARKmods like to drop on me every time I leave them butthurt about something was accidentally the entire userlist.

/yes, it exists
//personally saw it replace "Cuba" with "Brazil" in one post
///makes me feel really special, or at least it used to
 
2013-10-15 06:53:48 PM  
This is the problem with the implementation of the Bern Convention.

The US laws are still a good bit too author/creator/owner of a work for hire friendly

The Euro laws are way too hired artist/innocent bystander/subject of a creative work friendly

/Moral rights are nice but really, if you didn't protest and/or sold the work you really shouldn't be able to have a say in what happens to it after
//At least in the US hired artists and bystanders have to make it a tort claim rather than a IP issue
 
2013-10-15 07:05:05 PM  
Again? He goes through this every time his popularity dies off.
 
2013-10-15 09:19:18 PM  
To all the people stating how Techno Viking needs to partner with him, make another video, etc... so he can make money, can any of you even fathom that he does NOT want to make money or to be "famous", he just wants it taken down?
 
2013-10-15 09:30:27 PM  

t3knomanser: the_sidewinder: Streisand effect

Not completely applicable. The defendant was making a fair bit of money off of Technoviking. While some of the demands are obviously ignorant (it's on the Internet, it ain't getting unpublished), it's not absurd that Technoviking should have some control of the use of his likeness. T-shirts, etc. are completely out of bounds and the defendant should have known better. The "well, this is just meme culture" isn't an excuse.


Nope.

It occurred in public, Technoviking was acting like a fool in front of what was a presumably obvious camera.  He has no more claim than a celebrity has to a photo taken by a paparazzo.
 
2013-10-16 12:01:01 AM  
So, in realty, TechnoViking is not a manly descendant of the Vikings.  He's really a litigious, waffle eating *****.   I am so disenchanted.
 
2013-10-16 02:40:42 AM  
Key text from TFA: "the lawyers persisted."
 
2013-10-16 05:45:24 AM  

DarkVader: Technoviking was acting like a fool


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-10-16 06:42:47 AM  
"Fritsch had made around €10,000 from the video through YouTube ad revenue, licensing the clip to a couple of TV shows and through the aforementioned T-shirt sales"

I'd be upset too if someone were making $ off my image without my consent and I wasn't getting a fair share of it
 
2013-10-16 08:59:26 AM  

ggecko: To all the people stating how Techno Viking needs to partner with him, make another video, etc... so he can make money, can any of you even fathom that he does NOT want to make money or to be "famous", he just wants it taken down?


It's hard to believe anyone could be that stupid, but I suppose it's possible, in a SNL "Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer" way.

/personally, I think Technoviking just likes having his own personal little whipping boy, that he can torment whenever he wants by demanding that he accomplish the impossible
 
2013-10-16 10:34:52 AM  

DarkVader: Nope.

It occurred in public, Technoviking was acting like a fool in front of what was a presumably obvious camera. He has no more claim than a celebrity has to a photo taken by a paparazzo.


Well, first off, it's in Germany, and you probably don't know the laws over in Germany regarding expectation of privacy and the like. Second, this is a sticky issue that varies widely between countries and even in the US, comes down to each individual set of facts. There's two main things to consider here - whether someone's privacy is being invaded, and whether someone's likeness is being exploited. I can invade your privacy without exploiting your likeness, and I can exploit your likeness without invading your privacy. What you're doing is conflating the two: Yes, Technoviking was acting the fool in a public street in front of an obvious camera, so therefore, he probably doesn't have an expectation of privacy that was violated when he was being recorded. However, he also has control over his own likeness, and therefore, his likeness is his own to commercially exploit.

Now, in the US, as has been stated, the law swings a bit more towards the artist than the subject, while in Europe, the reverse is generally true (at least, in my limited understanding). Some of that has to do with 1st Amendment protection of art and artists. So if this had happened over here, the filmmaker probably would be able to argue that he was recording something as part of an art project or whatever and he should be allowed to financially exploit his artwork. He would probably also argue that Technoviking's likeness didn't really have much value in the first place, so he wasn't "stealing" that much by appropriating it. In Europe, however, the person's likeness rights probably trump the creator's copyright in his creation as far as who gets to make the money. You'll notice that the filmmaker said he had made about 10,000 euro on the video, but was only ordered to pay 8,000 to Technoviking. So while Technoviking controls the profitability of his likeness to a larger degree, the court did realize that the filmmaker has some intellectual property rights of his own in making the recording.

As far as censoring the video, that's not really what the order said. The order said that this particular filmmaker was prohibited from using Technoviking's likeness rights any more. That's a lot different than ordering this guy to completely scrub Technoviking from the internet.
 
Displayed 16 of 66 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report